John Tilloston was a member of the group within the Church of England who became known as the ‘Latitudinarians’ (Dugmore, 1942: 134). Latitudinarians were a group who, while continuing within the Church of England, attached relatively little importance to matters of dogmatic truth, ecclesiological organisation and liturgical practice (Cross and Livingstone, 1984: 803). For the Latitudinarians “the essentials of religion are few and simple, so there is no need to insist on High Church or Puritan shibboleths” (Dugmore, 1942: 135).

Tilloston was strongly opposed to the doctrine of transubstantiation, since there was no evidence for it in Scripture or in the Fathers, and he saw it as contrary to reason and giving rise to scandals and absurdities (Stone, 1909: II, 462; Dugmore, 1942: 137-138). His own view about the Eucharist is revealed in this passage from a sermon entitled, A Persuasive to Frequent Communion, where Tilloston says:

“If this be the end and use of this Sacrament, to be a solemn remembrance of the death and sufferings of our Lord during His absence from us, that is, till His coming to judgment, then this Sacrament will never be out of date till the second coming of our Lord. The consideration whereof should mightily strengthen and encourage our faith in the hope of eternal life so often as we partake of this Sacrament, since our Lord hath left it to us as a memorial of Himself till he comes to translate His Church into heaven, and as a sure pledge that He will come again at the end of the world, and invest us in that glory which He is now gone before to prepare for us.” (Tilloston, A Persuasive to Frequent Communion, in Works, cited in Stone, 1909: II, 464).

There is no linking here between the sign and the signified. The purpose of the Eucharist is to be a ‘solemn remembrance’ of Christ, used in the period of his absence before his second coming, to remind us of him and his work for us. Those who partake of the sacrament on earth do so as a ‘memorial’ and by it they have a ‘pledge’ of his coming again. The sense of ‘memorial’ here seems to be that of reminder as a memory aid and not that of memorial remembrance. There is no dynamic view of making the benefits of Christ’s passion available in the present, such as there is in the moderate realist notion of memorial remembrance or anamnesis. Instead the Eucharist seems to function as a useful reminder to the faithful of the past work of Christ and the hope of his return in the future. It seems therefore that Tilloston’s view of the Eucharist is based on nominalism. The sign and the signified seem to have some distance between them, and each acts as a separate and self-enclosed entity.

This does not mean that Tilloston did not value the Eucharist. Indeed in a work entitled A Discourse to His Servants Concerning Receiving the Sacrament, Tilloston explains a very positive belief in the Eucharist, saying:

“It is the most solemn institution of our religion; and, as we are Christians, we are obliged to the frequent receiving of it, and we cannot neglect it without a great contempt to our blessed Saviour and His religion. He hath appointed it for a solemn remembrance of His great love for us in laying down His life for us; and therefore He commands us to do it in remembrance of Him; and St. Paul tells us that ‘as often as we eat this bread, and drink this cup, we do show forth the Lord’s death till He come’. Both the comfort and the benefit of it are great. The comfort of it, because it does not only represent to us the exceeding love of our Saviour in giving His body to be broken, and His blood to be shed, for us, but it likewise seals to us all those blessings and benefits which are purchased and procured for us by His death and passion, the pardon of sins, and power against sin. The benefit of it is also great, because hereby we are confirmed in goodness, and our resolutions of better obedience are strengthened, and the grace of God’s Holy Spirit to enable us to do His will is hereby conveyed to us.” (Tilloston, A Discourse to His Servants Concerning Receiving the Sacrament, in Works, cited in Stone, 1909: II, 465).

The Eucharist is seen as valuable and frequent reception is encouraged, but the underlying theology of the Eucharist which Tilloston expresses here is nominalist. There is no obvious linking of the sign and the signified.

Tilloston was however, able to say that those who participated in the Eucharist in a worthy manner, did partake of the body and blood of Christ. In another sermon he says:

“Therefore let Christians take heed of coming to the sacrament, but, Let them come prepared and with due reverence, not as to a common meal, but to a solemn participation of the body and blood of Christ.” (Tilloston, Sermon XXV, in Works, cited in Dugmore, 1942: 136).

Clearly Tilloston is of the view that those who receive in a worthy manner, participate in the body and blood of Christ, but he does not in any way link the signs of the bread and wine with the signified body and blood of Christ. The sign and the signified remain separated in a nominalist conception of the Eucharist. The emphasis here is upon the use of and the participation in the sacrament in a worthy manner.